Thus, as I answer thisquestion, I would like to state that this is not the ‘official view’ ofPilgrim Covenant Church. We do not have an official view, in so far asour Constitution and Confession are silent about which view is correct,or even which eschatological position is correct, except that it is inmy opinion impossible to marry Dispensational Premillennialism with thetheology of the Westminster Standards without twisting the originallyintended meaning of the words in it. But that is another issue which wewill have to address on another occasion.

Now, back to the book of Revelation: four main ways of understanding the book have emerged in the Christian Church.

Firstly, there is the Preterist View.This view sees the book as describing the events and conditions of theAsian churches and the Roman Empire at the end of the first centuryA.D. In this view, Babylon and the Beasts refer to the Roman state,while the woman of chapter 12 refers to the persecuted church. Thebook, accordingly, served to encourage the suffering church with theassurance that God would intervene to bring about His sovereign will.This view was held in various forms in the early 16^thcentury, and has seen some form of revival in recent days. Theadvantage of the view is that it would have been of tremendousencouragement to the believers alive when it was written. Thedisadvantage of this view is that it does not quite do justice to thepredictive element that is contained in the book, and it has diminishedrelevance to Christians who live subsequent to the first century.

Secondly, there is the Historicist View.This view regards the book as setting forth, in one broad continuoussweep, a panoramic view of the entire course of Christian history fromthe first century to the Second Coming of Christ. Thus for example, thefalling star in Revelation 9:1 is seen by some as referring to PopeBoniface III; others, as referring to Mohammed; and yet others, to amonk Sergius. But the blowing of the 7^th Trumpet inRevelation 11:15ff is taken by most to refer to the French Revolutionof 1789. Though Calvin and Luther did not comment on Revelation, it isknown that most of the Reformers, up to the time of the Puritans, heldto the Historicist View. It is the view which identifies papal Romewith the beast. While I agree with some of the resultingidentifications from this view, such as the Pope being the Antichrist(which is supported by other passages in Scripture), I see overwhelmingdifficulties attending to it. In the first place, few historicists areagreed as to the precise episodes in history, which the various visionsappear to symbolise. In the second place, most if not all historicistswill only see in Revelation the development of the church in WesternEurope, while ignoring Christianity in the rest of the world. In thethird place, the book of Revelation would then largely be a closed bookto the majority of Christendom throughout the ages, who do not have theadvantage of historical or even current knowledge of the development ofthe church, to be able to appreciate the message in the book.

The third view is known as the Futurist View.This view maintains that from Revelation 4 onwards, the book deals withevents that will take place in connection with the Second Coming of theLord Jesus Christ. According to this view, none of the visions fromRevelation 4 to Revelation 22 pertains to the days when the letter waswritten, nor to the days subsequent to it. In fact, most futurists willinsist that Revelation 4–19 does not pertain to anything that thechurch will experience since the church would have been ‘raptured.’ Thebook therefore has to do with the Jews and those left behind during the"7 years Tribulation." Advocates of this view claim, with littlesubstantiation, that this is the unanimous view in the early churchbefore the 3^rd century. Actually, the modern futurist view is very much a development of the 19^th century, and was promoted by the Plymouth Brethren, the dispensational Bible Conferences in the 19^th and 20^thcenturies, and much of the Study Bibles available today, such as theScofield Study Bible, the Ryrie Study Bible, the KJV Study Bible andthe Parallel KJV Study Bible. Today, through these influences, manyChristians will regard anyone who is not a futurist to be a liberal!

This was the view that Iwas taught from the time I first became a Christian. At first, I heldto this view because it was the only view I knew. Subsequently, Icontinued to hold to this view out of fear of rejection. But today, Imust admit that I find it a frustrating exercise to read any commentarywhich is written from this perspective. This view robs the letter ofpractically all significance for the original audience as well as theChristian Church through the ages. It removes the book entirely fromits historical setting and has spawn innumerable fantasticalpredictions of future events. Almost all modern Christiancults—Christadelphians, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists,etc.—have found their niche in some unique futuristic interpretation.It does not prepare Christians for tribulations (You will be raptured!Why bother?), and have caused a generation of Christians to thrive onnewspaper speculations rather than on careful study of Scriptures.Stuart Olyott is not unjustified to say that "this view is pernicious!"And I am compelled to agree with R.C.H. Lenski that,

Most of the chiliasts [or futurists] disregard the Analogy of Scripture and the Analogy of Faith. Tell them that their doctrine is novum [i.e., new], and you will find that this is the very feature that is so attractive to them (Revelation in Commentary on the New Testament, [Hendrickson Publishers, 1998], 574).

Most commentaries onRevelation, found in the ordinary Christian bookshops today, approachRevelation from the futuristic standpoint, but two notable commentariesare by: John F. Walvoord and Robert L. Thomas.

The final view is the Idealist (from idea, not ideal) View.This is also known as the Spiritual or Poetic View. This view insiststhat, for the most part of the book, it does not deal with actualevents but with ideas or principles. The theme of the book is thevictory of Christ and His church over Satan and the unbelieving world.One convincing treatment of Revelation based on this approach is More than Conqueror(Baker Book House, 1982 [1942]) by William Hendriksen. Hendriksenproposes that the book comprise seven parallel sections, each spanningthe entire gospel age. The seven sections, with his subtitles, are: (1)Christ in the midst of the lampstands (1:1 to 3:22); (2) The vision ofheaven and the seals (4:1 to 7:17); (3) The seven trumpets (8:1 to11:19); (4) The persecuting dragon (12:1 to 14:20); (5) The seven bowls(15:1 to 16:21); (6) The fall of Babylon (17:1 to 19:21); and (7) TheGreat Consummation (20:1 to 22:21). The interpretation of the detailsof each of these cycles is guarded by cross-references from other partsof Scripture as well as knowledge of the historical context in whichthe letter was written. I am more and more inclined to believe thatthis view is correct. The advantage of this view is that it would beimmediately relevant not only to the first century Christians who weresuffering persecution, but to Christians throughout the entire gospelage. It also takes seriously the predictive element of the letter,since each of the cycle involves also things yet to come. For example,the cycle of the persecuting dragon clearly begins with the inceptionof the New Testament Church and ends with the final judgement.Similarly, the cycle of the Great Consummation begins with the gospelage and concludes with the final judgement and the eternal state. Othercommentators who hold to this view are: R.C.H. Lenski, Herman Hoeksema,Geoffrey B. Wilson, Charles D. Alexander (being printed by Banner ofTruth, I am told).